does it really matter?

C8H11NO2 + C10H12N2O + C43H66N12O12S2

This is what is widely considered to be the chemical formula for love. Dopamine. Serotonin. Oxytocin. Add these three together, and you get love. But what is love?

(What is love? Baby don’t hurt me)

When we talk about love, the first thing that comes to mind is generally a man and a woman facing hardships and persevering, getting married and riding off into the sunset. But that’s not all there is to love.

The ancient Greeks had 7 types of love - Eros, romantic love; Philia, platonic love or friendship; Ludus, playful love; Storge, familial love; Philautia, self-love; Pragma, committed love; and Agape, which is unconditional love for everyone.

The thing about love is that they are all equally important. None of them are ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the others. But a lot of the media generally tends to focus only on romantic love, and makes it out to be the one that is worth striving for the most.

In India especially, marriage was made out to be of utmost importance for centuries. We're constantly told that marriage is the end goal. Getting married is considered both the greatest hurdle to cross and the biggest boon one can receive, and it’s widely believed to be the only path to a fulfilling life. However, the concept of being in a monogamous marriage, settling down with them and having children with them is pretty common across the world. In fact, there’s even a term for it - amatonormativity.

Amatonormativity, according to Professor Elizabeth Blake who coined the tem, is the assumption that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans as a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship should be preferred to other relationship types. But this is a societal standard that has been shaped over hundreds of years. It’s definitely not wrong to pursue a monogamous relationship, get married and have kids, but it’s not wrong to not do that as well.

So what is the problem, exactly?

Romance definitely makes for an interesting genre. It shows (generally) two people who, against all odds, choose each other over and over again, and live happily ever after. It gives the audience a feeling of satisfaction and hope, that somebody out there would love you unconditionally and fight tooth and nail for you, and that despite all odds, you would get the cake and eat it too. It shows that you can still get happy endings no matter how difficult the road is. But how realistic is this?

Over the years, society has made finding a romantic partner as a teen into a norm in the Western world, and this influence has slowly seeped into India as well. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this as long as the relationship is a healthy one, but unfortunately, the concept of being in a relationship has evolved into something that is a requirement to be happy. A person who doesn’t have a romantic partner is seen as lonely and miserable, with no other solid reason to back it up. Even the way we say that we aren’t in a relationship, aka the word ‘single’, perpetuates the concept that you’re not ‘complete’ without a significant other.

This is also further propagated by the media in almost any form. Romance seems to rear its head in pretty much every movie, regardless of the genre. It’s commonly said that we’re all the main characters of our respective lives. But this just isn’t true. There’s a world of difference between fictional main characters and us. In the media, whether it be movies or books, there are designated side-kicks, antagonists, and a love interest. The first two are rare enough to be found in real life, so why do we put so much effort to find the third?

Before we continue, a differentiation must be made between media of the romance genre and every other genre. Movies that are mainly romance obviously have to portray romance as the main plot, but when movies of other genres always have a love-interest, it gets over-glorified. The main character always ends up with a romantic partner at the end of the story, or it is alluded to, directly or indirectly.

Where this gets even more problematic is when the main character's entire life revolves around romance. This may work for some people, but it is not only an extremely unhealthy way to live, it’s also portraying a flawed message. We see many pre-teen and teenager coming of age films where the high school children are always focussed only on the romantic aspect of their lives, and devote all their time and effort into that. They are desperate for a significant other, and are more often than not, portrayed as lonely outcasts with no friends. But once they get a ‘glow up’ of some sort, they land a perfect romantic partner and all their problems are solved.

When we consume media that delivers this message over and over again, it gets ingrained in us, consciously or subconsciously. But life doesn’t work that way. A healthy romantic relationship will give you support, of course, but it isn’t going to magic away your problems. On the other end of the spectrum, you can be perfectly happy without a relationship. Love is necessary to be happy, but that love needn’t always be romantic.

This mindset backfires a lot, as being in a relationship is also key to social status in some circles, especially in high school. Thus, people get into relationships for popularity points, or to show off on social media, despite not having an actual emotional bond with the other person. Being in a relationship just to be in a relationship is a surefire way of not achieving happiness. This immediately leads to abusive or toxic relationships, which leaves you worse off than where you started.

The concept of romance, unfortunately, is even pushed onto children. Clothing brands print out ‘ladies’ man’ on toddler’s clothes. Parents either tease their children with their friends of the opposite gender, or flat out refuse to let their children have friends of the opposite gender. Even a lot of cartoons and TV shows portray the opposite gender as only a love interest. When this bias is thrown onto children day in and out, they tend to see the opposite gender as potential romantic partners first, and as people second.

This is also extremely heteronormative, as parents assume that their child is straight, and also make it clear that any potential love interest will be one of the opposite gender. This affects queer children more adversely, as it’s hard to come out of that mentality enough to accept themselves for who they are. Being told repeatedly that a love interest must be of the opposite gender will lead to the conclusion that having a romantic partner of the same gender is wrong, and thus leads to internalised homophobia as well. The media does nothing to remove this stereotype, as gay characters are mainly comic reliefs or the signature ‘gay best friend’, and lesbians are typically viewed through the male gaze and never get a happy ending. Other non-het queer characters are more or less non-existant in the media.

C8H11NO2 + C10H12N2O + C43H66N12O12S2

This is what is widely considered to be the chemical formula for love. Dopamine. Serotonin. Oxytocin. Add these three together, and you get love. But what is love?

(What is love? Baby don’t hurt me)

When we talk about love, the first thing that comes to mind is generally a man and a woman facing hardships and persevering, getting married and riding off into the sunset. But that’s not all there is to love.

The ancient Greeks had 7 types of love - Eros, romantic love; Philia, platonic love or friendship; Ludus, playful love; Storge, familial love; Philautia, self-love; Pragma, committed love; and Agape, which is unconditional love for everyone.

The thing about love is that they are all equally important. None of them are ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the others. But a lot of the media generally tends to focus only on romantic love, and makes it out to be the one that is worth striving for the most.

In India especially, marriage was made out to be of utmost importance for centuries. We're constantly told that marriage is the end goal. Getting married is considered both the greatest hurdle to cross and the biggest boon one can receive, and it’s widely believed to be the only path to a fulfilling life. However, the concept of being in a monogamous marriage, settling down with them and having children with them is pretty common across the world. In fact, there’s even a term for it - amatonormativity.

Amatonormativity, according to Professor Elizabeth Blake who coined the tem, is the assumption that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans as a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship should be preferred to other relationship types. But this is a societal standard that has been shaped over hundreds of years. It’s definitely not wrong to pursue a monogamous relationship, get married and have kids, but it’s not wrong to not do that as well.

So what is the problem, exactly?

Romance definitely makes for an interesting genre. It shows (generally) two people who, against all odds, choose each other over and over again, and live happily ever after. It gives the audience a feeling of satisfaction and hope, that somebody out there would love you unconditionally and fight tooth and nail for you, and that despite all odds, you would get the cake and eat it too. It shows that you can still get happy endings no matter how difficult the road is. But how realistic is this?

Over the years, society has made finding a romantic partner as a teen into a norm in the Western world, and this influence has slowly seeped into India as well. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this as long as the relationship is a healthy one, but unfortunately, the concept of being in a relationship has evolved into something that is a requirement to be happy. A person who doesn’t have a romantic partner is seen as lonely and miserable, with no other solid reason to back it up. Even the way we say that we aren’t in a relationship, aka the word ‘single’, perpetuates the concept that you’re not ‘complete’ without a significant other.

This is also further propagated by the media in almost any form. Romance seems to rear its head in pretty much every movie, regardless of the genre. It’s commonly said that we’re all the main characters of our respective lives. But this just isn’t true. There’s a world of difference between fictional main characters and us. In the media, whether it be movies or books, there are designated side-kicks, antagonists, and a love interest. The first two are rare enough to be found in real life, so why do we put so much effort to find the third?

Before we continue, a differentiation must be made between media of the romance genre and every other genre. Movies that are mainly romance obviously have to portray romance as the main plot, but when movies of other genres always have a love-interest, it gets over-glorified. The main character always ends up with a romantic partner at the end of the story, or it is alluded to, directly or indirectly.

Where this gets even more problematic is when the main character's entire life revolves around romance. This may work for some people, but it is not only an extremely unhealthy way to live, it’s also portraying a flawed message. We see many pre-teen and teenager coming of age films where the high school children are always focussed only on the romantic aspect of their lives, and devote all their time and effort into that. They are desperate for a significant other, and are more often than not, portrayed as lonely outcasts with no friends. But once they get a ‘glow up’ of some sort, they land a perfect romantic partner and all their problems are solved.

When we consume media that delivers this message over and over again, it gets ingrained in us, consciously or subconsciously. But life doesn’t work that way. A healthy romantic relationship will give you support, of course, but it isn’t going to magic away your problems. On the other end of the spectrum, you can be perfectly happy without a relationship. Love is necessary to be happy, but that love needn’t always be romantic.

This mindset backfires a lot, as being in a relationship is also key to social status in some circles, especially in high school. Thus, people get into relationships for popularity points, or to show off on social media, despite not having an actual emotional bond with the other person. Being in a relationship just to be in a relationship is a surefire way of not achieving happiness. This immediately leads to abusive or toxic relationships, which leaves you worse off than where you started.

The concept of romance, unfortunately, is even pushed onto children. Clothing brands print out ‘ladies’ man’ on toddler’s clothes. Parents either tease their children with their friends of the opposite gender, or flat out refuse to let their children have friends of the opposite gender. Even a lot of cartoons and TV shows portray the opposite gender as only a love interest. When this bias is thrown onto children day in and out, they tend to see the opposite gender as potential romantic partners first, and as people second.

This is also extremely heteronormative, as parents assume that their child is straight, and also make it clear that any potential love interest will be one of the opposite gender. This affects queer children more adversely, as it’s hard to come out of that mentality enough to accept themselves for who they are. Being told repeatedly that a love interest must be of the opposite gender will lead to the conclusion that having a romantic partner of the same gender is wrong, and thus leads to internalised homophobia as well. The media does nothing to remove this stereotype, as gay characters are mainly comic reliefs or the signature ‘gay best friend’, and lesbians are typically viewed through the male gaze and never get a happy ending. Other non-het queer characters are more or less non-existant in the media.

🤍 Disclaimer- In this article, we are mostly talking about femininity in the aspect of make-up, fashion, etc. Stereotypically feminine and masculine things are a social construct, and it is okay for anyone of any gender to engage in their preferred form of expression.

“You run like a girl.”

“Man up.”

These two sentences both talk about behaving like a certain gender, yet one is uplifting, while the other is an insult. It’s not hard to guess which is which.

We know that misogyny exists, and being a woman in itself comes with a lot of challenges. But it’s even worse when one is traditionally feminine.

So, what is femininity?

The concept of femininity varies across cultures, but it is generally the various characteristics and traits that are attributed to women. However, as these are personality traits, they can be exhibited by anybody regardless of gender. According to popular belief, it includes sensitivity, tenderness, kindness, passiveness, etc. In the modern world, it is also equated with the combination of wearing make-up, being concerned about their physical appearance, and ambition. But there isn’t a real definition of femininity as it is pretty much a spectrum encompassing certain traits. These certain personality traits and characteristics got gendered because society had a specific role for each gender, and they evolved these traits to better adapt to those particular roles. While both masculine and feminine traits can be found in everyone in various combinations, society expects men to show more masculinity, and women to show more femininity.

When and how did it get demonised?

Misogyny can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece, with the myth of Pandora’s box, where Pandora opened the box and unleashed misery upon mankind. Therefore the blame for all of man’s problems was placed upon the shoulders of a woman, and it all went downhill from there. As the original colonizers, the Greek spread this tale into the places they conquered, and misogyny took root in all the cultures around. This idea of women being inferior was also propagated by the tale of Adam and Eve in the Old Testament, where Eve made Adam eat the forbidden apple, which led to the downfall of man.

In the 1950s in the USA, women who had taken up civilian jobs during world war 2, were now expected to go back to being housewives, or taking up more ‘feminine’ jobs which would ultimately pay less. Due to this, in the second wave of feminism that started in the early 1960s, women rioted and started dressing and acting more ‘masculine’ in the hopes of being taken seriously by their male counterparts, and getting the jobs they needed. This meant that they denounced make-up and high heels and other such ‘feminine’ things.

So presenting as more masculine in that era was unfortunately required for women to empower themselves. But why do we still look down on those who present themselves in a feminine fashion today? We see it everyday; women who wear more make-up are considered shallow, women who like to dress in pink and have blonde hair are considered to be stupid and childish, and those who conform to this kind of femininity and are ambitious are chalked up to be mean and selfish, especially in the media.

In common teenage coming-of-age movies, and young adult fiction, the antagonist is generally a stereotypically feminine and preppy girl, while the protagonist is more of a tomboy and an outcast. The antagonist is made to be a villain with only their own motives in mind, with no other personality traits whatsoever. Though this does not embody what femininity means, it still depicts the appearance of hyper femininity as something that should be shunned. This is common even in movies targeted towards other audiences, such as Dreamworks' 'Shark Tale', where one female fish is strongly ambitious, while being concerned about her physical appearance. However, she is given the role of the villain, while the female love interest is, to be frank, bland and more passive, with her whole personality being just the love interest.

This kind of stereotyping women into two very strict boxes damages us more than we think. People knowingly or unknowingly absorb a lot of concepts from the media, and when we are presented with the idea that being ambitious and rocking a pink outfit = bad, while being passive and dressing down makes them more interesting, we apply this in our day to day life as well. But this narrative is absolutely wrong, because women cannot be pushed into such strong stereotypes. People are complex beings, and with each person's personality being so drastically different, it goes without saying that the same applies to women.

Studies have found that women who wear more make-up in their workplace are less likely to be given a promotion, solely because of their make-up. It is commonly viewed that women who wear heavy make-up are considered to be less competent than the other female workers. But this is a misconception, as the productivity of a person is in no way related to the amount of make-up they wear, or the way they choose to dress.

Another way this is expressed is that parents allow their daughters to play with ‘boy’s’ toys and games, but the same is not applicable the other way around. Sons are rarely given dolls and Barbies to play with, for the reason that it will somehow make them less masculine. What scares people so much about femininity?

Demonising femininity affects the mentality of almost everyone. It pits women against women, and pushes back the feminism movement as well. In the end, only the patriarchy benefits from this. Femininity being labelled as something that is evil has given rise to the ‘not like other girls’ and ‘pick-me girls’ trope.

The ‘not like other girls’ trope is basically when a girl, typically a pre-teen or teenager, believes that she is different from other girls because she is not into mainstream pop music, or doesn’t wear make-up and dresses.

Okay, she believes that she’s different. What’s wrong with that?

The problem is that when this phrase is used, it’s usually in the context that the girl being referred to is better than other girls just because she doesn’t wear make-up. The phrase puts down the entire gender, while trying to compliment one girl in a back-handed way. Dressing in a different way isn’t a reason to put a person on a pedestal, and it builds up a superiority complex for something that is pretty much inane. The phrase doesn’t even bring into consideration the personality of the girl in question as well as the personalities of the other girls.

This also results in internalised misogyny, since the girl believes she is better than other girls because she is being as masculine as possible, hence leading to the conclusion that being a girl in itself is bad. Internalised sexism, according to Wikipedia, is when an individual enacts sexist actions and attitudes towards themselves and people of their own sex. They further propagate the ideals and behaviour imposed upon them by their oppressors. This causes a bigger divide within women, as they subconsciously put down other women who do not conform to the patriarchy, and they tend to believe gender biases in favour of men.

This kind of mentality is hard to shake out, and it is damaging in both the short and the long run. Embracing your ‘feminine’ side is something that’s not only fun to do, but it also makes us human. Being feminine is not something to be ashamed of, or something to be demonized. The whole idea plays into the patriarchy. The ideology of ‘live and let live’ is very important in this aspect. We shouldn’t put down women just because of the way they dress. Many aspects of femininity help make us better people, and that is something we should celebrate.

⚠️ Disclaimer - The authors of this article are in no way specialised in dealing with trauma or PTSD. All the content and information in the article has been written only after intense research and several discussions. Views expressed in the article belong to the authors.

The internet was once a cozy web, attracting a few people like flies. But now, the internet has grown into something bigger than Aragog could weave. In such a huge space that technically has minimal supervision, disturbing content can be put up for everyone to see as easy as a click. This can have a long lasting effect on some viewers. How do we avoid unwittingly affecting those who might be adverse to such content? Simple. Trigger Warnings.

⚠️ What is it?

A trigger warning is a statement made prior to sharing potentially disturbing content. People who may struggle with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) and/or panic disorders often have things that “trigger” them. These triggers activate the person’s fight or flight response, causing distress to the individual, and may also result in a flashback which could lead to a full blown panic attack. To help a person brace themselves for this kind of content which could potentially “trigger” them, a trigger warning is used.

We’ve all heard the word ‘trauma’, and used it casually. But what is it exactly? According to the American Psychology Association (APA), trauma is an emotional response to a terrible event like an accident, sexual assault or natural disasters. A trigger is a stimulus that brings back memories of said trauma. According to several researchers, triggers are highly specific to the particular individual, including and not restricted to which sense organ the trigger is tied to, and how each individual reacts to the trigger. When a person is affected by a trigger, they experience something that is termed by psychologists as “intrusion symptoms”. Intrusion symptoms may occur without any stimulus, but most times, certain smells, sounds, words or images might cause one to relive their trauma. Trigger warnings are used to inform the individual that there is distressing content that could potentially trigger their trauma.

Generally, the trigger may not actually be the traumatic incident itself, but things that may remind them of what happened before said traumatic incident. A baseball bat might trigger a certain person because their assaulter may have broken into their house with a baseball bat. A person who has been raped could be triggered by the smell of their rapist’s cologne, even years later. A person who lived with abusive parents could find the smell of a certain type or brand of alcohol triggering. A certain ringtone or noise could cause someone to go into a panic attack.

This is where trigger warnings can be useless, because on the one hand, one would not think that something like a ringtone could be potentially “triggering”. On the other hand, it’s unrealistic to put a trigger warning before every piece of media, on the off chance that one potential viewer could get triggered by the content.

⚠️ Traumatic events Vs. Content

There’s a difference between trigger warnings and content warnings. Trigger warnings are used to warn the viewer about content that could lead to intrusion symptoms, while content warning is generally used as a warning of disturbing content that could upset a majority of the viewers, irrespective of whether it causes intrusion symptoms or not. This is typically used before depictions of graphic violence, sexual assault and abuse, animal abuse, and even flashing lights. However, the line between trigger and content warning is pretty blurred, since all these things could also cause intrusion symptoms.

⚠️ Going back to the Web

A lot of people use the internet as an escape from the “real world”, and naturally, want the internet to be a safer space than the world around them. So they put trigger and content warnings on distressing media, because they know that people with PTSD also view the same content. However, with the rise in internet users, there’s also been a push to extreme liberal views, to the extent that internet users demand trigger warnings on things that aren’t conventionally triggering. But that’s not plausible, as the people who exist in the real world are the same people who are on the internet. And as we all know, people don’t come with trigger warnings in the real world. The internet is also a gigantic platform, and it is next to impossible to be aware of every single user’s trigger and accommodate them.

Researchers have also found that trigger warnings do more harm than good. One of the most common coping mechanisms of people with PTSD is avoidance, where-in they avoid everything that has to do with their trauma. By extensively using trigger warnings on everything, it is enabling this behaviour, and allows them to live in their own cozy cocoon. This sounds appealing enough, but at the end of the day, they never face their trauma, and can ultimately never move on from it. The more one avoids something, the more that avoidant behavior is reinforced, and the worse the problem gets. It can cause a dislike to become a fear, and that fear can very well become a phobia.

Another harmful result of overusing trigger warnings is that it causes viewers who suffer from PTSD, etc, to look at their trauma as their central identity. This happens to the point that they see themselves only as an embodiment of their trauma, instead of an actual person. Trauma is relative, and even those who face the same trauma cope with it differently. A few constantly think about their trauma, while others struggle with it less frequently. A lot of these people are in the process of recovery, and are learning how to control what they think about. Using trigger warnings extensively reminds them of their trauma and pushes back their recovery. Some people on the internet enable the concept of glorifying trauma to ridiculous lengths, through both the trigger warnings, and by infantilizing those who have undergone trauma. There is a difference between treating people suffering from PTSD with compassion, and comparing them to children who are unable to live independently.

Trauma is relative, some people’s thoughts are constantly preoccupied with their trauma, and others not. Some are in the process of recovery and are learning how to control what they think about. In a way, by over-using a trigger warning, one is almost indirectly reminding them of their trauma, and also indirectly coddling them. This pushes back recovery.

The central problem with the warnings, however, is that while they warn the viewers that disturbing content exists within the media, it does not reduce the impact that the actual disturbing content has on the viewer. People with PTSD cannot control their intrusion symptoms without therapy, and cannot brace themselves against those symptoms regardless of whether there was a trigger warning prior to the content or not.

One incredibly effective way to deal with PTSD is exposure therapy, which is the complete opposite of the message that slapping a trigger warning on everything sends. Exposure therapy is a form of psychological treatment that involves exposing the target patient to the anxiety source or it’s context, in order to allow the patient to normalise it for themselves. Several studies have found that 60-90% of patients who have undergone exposure therapy have reported either significant or moderate relief from their symptoms.

⚠️ Goofy Trigger or Actual Trigger?

Unfortunately, trigger warnings are slowly becoming more of a joke on the internet. What was once created to accommodate PTSD symptoms has now become synonymous with ‘offensive content’, which trivializes those with genuine trauma. People have unironically asked for trigger warnings on content with milk products as it may be "offensive" to lactose intolerant people. They use trigger warnings for misogyny, menstruation, insects, and even skinny people! This is problematic, to say the least. None of these even require trigger warnings! The internet has taken something as serious as a trigger and a person’s trauma and turned it into a complete and utter joke.

When we look at trigger warnings, we associate them with problematic things, like child abuse. It’s pretty much conditioned in our brains. But then when we look at, for example, ‘TW- Food’, our brains connect the dots and deem food as problematic. When people who struggle with eating disorders see that, it’s reinforced in them that food is triggering and a bad thing, and it makes recovery for them that much harder. Moreover, in the real world, a McDonald's billboard advertisement doesn't come with a trigger warning for those who find food "triggering". People struggling with their body image need to understand that, due to societal standards, the modelling and fashion industry will choose skinny people to model for them. Now, although the industry is slowly changing, being thin is still the norm. We also cannot ignore the fact that naturally skinny people exist, and their mere existence absolutely should not be something that is ‘triggering’ .

Of course, certain content such as graphic depictions of violence, sexual assault, child and animal abuse, self-injury and suicide mandatorily require a trigger and/or content warning, as they warn people with PTSD from viewing and/or reliving their own trauma in a way, and also warn other people who may not be in the right headspace to view such content.

Another crucial trigger warning that most of us may have seen is the warning for flashing lights. Flashing lights can trigger seizures in people who have epilepsy. While this is not a trauma induced trigger, it’s caused by a medical condition, and can lead to those with epilepsy to have life-threatening seizures.

Triggers are definitely real, and undoubtedly should be accommodated as much as possible. But when one is on a platform that’s as big as the internet, it becomes each person’s responsibility to make sure that they don’t harm themselves by triggering their PTSD. While therapy is definitely the best option to treat PTSD and trauma, it’s not possible for everyone affected by it to afford therapy for various reasons. So it’s better to avoid triggering things on the internet. However, it is simply not possible for the internet nor the millions of users on it to cater to everybody’s trauma. In the real world, the number of people one interacts with is relatively fewer, and people would be willing to accommodate one’s trauma. On the internet, which has almost 5 billion users, there is absolutely no way for every individual’s trauma to be accounted for. Treating everyone with compassion is a must, but curbing half of the internet’s content with trigger warnings is messy, and makes people lose focus of why it started in the first place.

So, are you triggered yet?

Some references used by the authors.

Track 1 : intro : k-pop is gay!

Don’t worry, we can already hear the groans. “Why are you talking about k-pop? Those guys look gay. They look like girls.”

This is exactly why we’re talking about it. There’s a large, very harmful stigma attached to the whole industry, and it feeds into so many problematic conceptions and ideologies.

Back in 1992, the k-pop group Seo Taiji and The Boys debuted, bringing with them the softer, more gentle aesthetic that most k-pop boy bands today follow. This changed the outlook that the South Korean society had of men, and male beauty standards, and paved the way for the concept of kkonminam (꽃미남), which roughly translates to ‘beautiful man’, a.k.a, a man who is concerned with his physical appearance and its constant upkeep. These men use beauty products, have lengthy skin care routines, and pay close attention to the way they dress. Male k-pop idols also follow this, both on stage with dramatic make-up, and off stage, with more natural make-up.

Top left - Monsta x, Bottom left - Stray Kids, Right - Ateez

People in South Korea, at large, are also pretty physically affectionate with each other. Two men holding hands while walking down the street isn’t considered taboo; it’s normal. The society over there doesn’t look down upon male with male skinship.

Track 2 : regional masculinity and toxic masculinity

Understandably, this comes as a cultural shock to people who have different standards of male beauty and physical affection. However, the common reaction to Korean standards, notably from men of other cultures, seems to be almost unanimously hatred and degrading outlash. Why are Korean standards so threatening to other men?

In Western culture, and therefore some formerly colonized countries’ cultures, skinship and platonic physical affection is something that is socially limited to women, and is considered ‘feminine’. So when men do something that is traditionally considered ‘feminine’, they are automatically perceived as ‘less manly’. Men are expected to be stoic and strong, and the only emotion that they are socially accepted to feel is anger. These are only a few facets of toxic masculinity that men are expected to follow. Things like feelings and emotions are uselessly gendered. These are human reactions that reasonably everybody feels, on some level. Yet when men express these very same emotions, they are labelled ‘feminine’. And somehow, when confronted with k-pop idols who wear makeup or dress a certain way, a lot of men feel like their masculinity is threatened.

Here is an example of two men. Chris Hemsworth who typically fits the western standard of masculinity, and Hyunjin from the group Stray Kids whose looks have been praised by many as he fits Korea's "masculinity".

All of this stems from a lot of deep-rooted misogyny, and how anything remotely perceived as ‘feminine’ is instantly considered inferior. There is also a fair share of racism, because those who don’t fit in each respective culture’s idea of gender are instantly shunned.

Track 3 : gender is a social construct

But before we truly dive into this topic, we wanted to establish that the entire concept of gender is a social construct. This means that gender refers to certain characteristics, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, a man, a boy or a girl, as well as the relationships with one another that have been created by society.

One theory of ours is that it's human nature to categorise similar things in order to understand them, and in this case it's genitalia. There are three types - male, female, and intersex genitalia, with male and female being the predominant ones. People tend to group those with the same genitalia and term it as a certain 'gender', which in our society, are broadly classified as male and female. Through this, society has then created certain behaviours and stereotypes linked to each gender, which one must abide by in order to be socially accepted.

These stereotypes like women being empathetic, affectionate and emotional and men being more stoic, less emotional, and more aggressive, are so harmful, as they’ve pushed on how each gender is supposed to behave. They say that inherently, a man or a woman acts in a certain way and has certain features. Physically and biologically, one can agree that there are differences between the two, but behaviorally, not as much. The concept of Tabula Rasa in psychology states that the human mind when born is a clean slate, and one can be conditioned to behave a certain way from a young age. These stereotypes are so deep-rooted with our society that one fails to realise it.

Track 4 : problematic much? (misogyny and homophobia)

When people call Korean idols feminine or that they look like girls, it is taken in the context of an insult. This is so incredibly misogynistic, as it implies that if k-pop idols look feminine, it is a downgrade of their masculinity. Thus it indirectly suggests that masculinity is better than femininity.

By referring to them as “gay” or “looking gay”, one is suggesting that being a straight man is the best thing to be, and that everyone else is a downgrade from there.

Another major factor to be considered is that the fanbase of male k-pop bands has a majority of female fans. There is a long standing custom of considering women’s, especially teenage girls’, interests as frivolous. This has happened before, when Frank Sinatra had a large female fan following, and even The Beatles, who are now considered the pioneers of certain genres of music, were once not taken seriously solely because of their female fanbase. Even the world famous Justin Bieber and One Direction have had their fair share of people calling them ‘gay’ or ‘girls’. However, there is a certain hypocrisy in this stereotyping. Men who have a large female fanbase are considered gay, yet sports players, who have predominantly male fanbases, are not.

As for the LGBTQIA+ community, this is a community that has already been shunned and ostracised for centuries. Assuming someone’s sexuality is never okay, whether they are assumed to be straight or gay or anything else. Labelling k-pop idols as ‘gay’ based on the way they present themselves and their physical appearance is incredibly toxic and harmful, as this feeds into stereotypes that have been created by cisgender heterosexual white males in media.

A relationship between a man and a woman is what is considered traditionally “natural”. So when one sees two men or two women in a relationship, it is automatically, and incorrectly, assumed that one male takes up the female part of the relationship, and one female takes up the male part of the relationship. See the toxicity?

A man could tick of every single checkbox in the western standard of masculinity, and be gay. One’s gender identity and sexuality has nothing to do with their outward appearance, or the beauty products they choose to use. Plenty of performing artists use make-up regularly because it looks better on stage, under the cameras and the extravagant lighting set-up. But that doesn't automatically make every dancer, or every actor gay. As soon as a man shows interest in something that is considered to be feminine, he is automatically assumed as gay. The whole concept of presenting oneself as the western standards of masculinity to appear as a straight man should be done away with.

Track 5 : i just kinda wish you were gay - billie eilish

Fans of k-pop boy bands also feed into this culture, knowingly or unknowingly, brought about by shipping members of bands. Shipping is the desire of fans for two or more people to be in a relationship with each other. This is widespread among all fanbases of k-pop bands. One of the most popular ships is Jungkook and V from BTS. Unfortunately, this shipping happens to the extent of becoming uncomfortable for the idols, and is detrimental to the actual relationship they have with other members.

Videos like these that over- analyse interactions between two members of a certain group (here it is Jungkook and Taehyung from BTS). The large viewing audience feed into their borderline creepy behaviour. This also may cause rifts among the members as they may become uncomfortable.

These kind of fans can be broadly divided into two spectrums- cisgender, straight women, and the queer community. When cisgender-heterosexual women aggressively promote their ‘OTP’ (One True Pairing), it’s mostly stemming from their delusions. They know that there is next to no chance of them ever being romantically involved with their idols, and thus if their idols are gay, it makes the rejection easier to bear. They would rather see their idols with another man rather than another woman.

One more potential reason for cisgender-heterosexual women to aggressively ship two male idols is simply because they also abide by certain societal stereotypes and know masculinity as what the western standard is. So when two idols are more physically affectionate and look “softer” they also term them as gay. These girls or women may not call them “gay” in the context of an insult, but unknowingly they are pushing on a harmful stereotype of queer men.

However, with most queer fans, they use shipping as a projection of themselves or their community, and use it as a coping mechanism. In a world where it’s hard to openly be a part of the LGBTQIA+ community, queer fans find some amount of release in identifying with queer idol ships, whether they be real or not. It helps them come to terms with their own identity, and goes a long way in allowing them to accept themselves.

Some amount of shipping, by both queer and non-queer fans, is acceptable as long as it’s harmless. But when it is taken to the extreme, to the point that the idols themselves are made uncomfortable, it can be extremely problematic and sends the wrong message to non-fans as well. That’s when non-fans say, "hey, you guys are their fans and you’re calling them gay, so I’m going to do it too, but in a derogatory way."

Track 6 : hAhA SHINee gay

This also brings the point of fan service. Fan service is propagated by the k-pop companies themselves, where idols show physical affection on stage for the satisfaction of the fans. But this is taken in the wrong vein at times, and it can be incredibly harmful to everyone. A prominent example is when SHINee, a very popular k-pop boy group, performed a cover of a song called Internet War, originally by Seo Taiji. The song was meant to raise awareness about pedophilia and the grooming of young children by adults. Kim Jonghyun and Lee Taemin, the two members of SHINee who performed the song, did a wonderful job of trying to portray the actual meaning of the song. But because Jonghyun was shirtless, half of the fandom proclaimed it as fanservice, and the other half lashed out at Jonghyun for making the performance too "gay" and demanded his resignation from SHINee. None of them gave a second thought to the actual message that the band was trying to put across.

Track 7 : we <3 our hypocritical fans

Here’s the icing on the cake- a lot of the fans are incredibly hypocritical as well. They push their OTP onto everyone, they make their idols being gay as their whole personality, but the moment an idol actually comes out as gay, the fans waste no time in turning around and being homophobic.

Holland, the first openly gay k-pop idol who debuted in early 2018, is still not accepted in the majority of his own country.

Hidden track - is Sana gay?

Okay, we got that male idols are subject to being labelled ‘gay’ just for looking effiminate. But what about the female idols? Women universally are pretty physically affectionate with each other, without being assumed as gay. So female idols doing the same isn’t very revolutionary in terms of the gender norms that are followed worldwide. [Sana and Jeongyeon from Twice]

The ships between female idols that do exist, for example Moonbyul and Solar from Mamamoo, are generally propagated by female queer fans.

Left - Solar and Moonbyul from Mamamoo, Right - Lisa and Jennie from Blackpink

Track 8 : outro : conclusion

Your phone just cracked. It fell off the table, it bounced off a wall, or it was just a classic case of wrong place, wrong time and was crushed under something weighty. Either way, there is no saving it, and you are left with the only option of buying a new phone. Here, your friends chime in, urging you to buy the latest iPhone. No matter that an Android is cheaper, has the same features and is less likely to meet the same fate as your previous phone. Your friends make their voices louder, more demanding, and you finally succumb and buy an iPhone. Congratulations, you are now a victim of herd mentality.

Disclaimer- this article has no intentions to slander Apple products, regardless of the authors’ personal views.

So, what is herd mentality?

Herd mentality, according to wikipedia, is a mentality that describes how people can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors on a largely emotional, rather than rational, basis. People usually ignore their own feelings in this process, and make different decisions than they would have individually.

When in Rome, be a Roman

Humans have always been social creatures. To fit in with the rest of the group and be accepted, social conformity was the norm. Thus, ’herd mentality’ was born. It was first coined by Gabriel Tarde and Gustave Le Bo in the 19th century. This herd mentality led to the process of groupthink, where members of a group pushed aside their own dissenting opinions just to have the appearance of unanimity.

This conformity can be something as simple as applauding when the other audience applauds, or something as problematic as bullying somebody just because everybody else bullies them.

Why do we follow the crowd?

To be plain and simple, it's comfortable. You don’t stand alone and you won’t be singled out. You have the comfort of the masses around you. There’s no pressure to be actively individualistic, you can just swim with the current.

In society, we are also encouraged to be ‘normal’ and fit in with everyone else. Those who don’t comply with the majority are shunned as outcasts. Therefore, to be liked and accepted in society, most people suppress their individuality and change aspects of themselves, adjusting to norms dictated by others.

It is also assumed that walking the road more travelled leads to higher rates of success, because hey, everybody else succeeded, didn’t they? But this is a misconception, other than in select few exceptions. Most people think that this is an easy short-cut, and try to get the best of both worlds. But success and comfort rarely go together. To succeed, one must go through the mortifying ordeal of actively being themselves and defending their opinion, which just isn't possible when they are part of the crowd.

In India

A perfect example of herd mentality, and a very relevant issue in society, is the Indian education system, and the stigma that surrounds it. A huge chunk of the population prioritizes the science stream and ostracizes those who choose the arts. It’s assumed that "smart" kids take up science and the "stupid" kids take up arts.

While we were having this discussion, we wondered why this was. The first thing that one of us mentioned was how science was relatively more rooted in logic, and perhaps due to this, people leaned towards science. But one of us argued that our culture was rife with superstitious beliefs, so it didn’t make much sense.

The most common reason that children are pushed into the science stream, and encouraged to become doctors and engineers, is that it pays well. These two professions, in general, lead to financial stability. Here, herd mentality comes into the picture- the people blindly believe that only engineering or medical professions will pay well, without doing actual research. There are plenty of other fields that can sustain your average nuclear family just fine. But this is food for thought that traditional Indian households find hard to digest. This is probably because, in such traditional Indian households, the men are usually expected to be the financial providers, and there is a certain comfort in having a stable 9 to 5 job, like a desk job. Of course, there is stable work to be had in any field, but herd mentality has played its role once again in spreading misinformation, and family members claim that financial stability is to be had only in the engineering/medical field.

Arguably, the cut off percentages for the differing streams is also to blame. The science cut off is much higher than for the art streams, and thus it is assumed that “smart” students opt for science, while the “stupid” students have no other option but to go to arts, as they couldn’t clear the science cut off. This leads to the notion that those who take up science are inherently smarter than arts students, which prompts the typical Indian family to force their child to opt for science.

This herd mentality extends to the students themselves- we often see science students dismissing arts students, claiming that they “have it easy” as they are in arts. This stereotype also feeds into the bragging culture. People would prefer to brag about their child who is studying in science, as it is also a subtle way to show that their child is “smart”.

Blind Justice

Another relevant problem would be the reaction of the masses in protest against the controversial CAA bill passed in early 2019. Thousands gathered on the streets, demanding both the CAA and NRC bills to be scrapped. However, when some of the protestors were interviewed by news agents, most didn’t even know the full forms of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) and NRC (National Register of Citizens). Yet they appeared in the masses, calling for justice. Others did away with the farce of justice entirely and stated that they showed merely up because their leaders told them to.

A more benign instance of herd mentality is showcased on social media, particularly Instagram. Whenever a human rights issue goes viral, for instance, the Black Lives Matter movement and the genocide in Palestine, there is a barrage of sympathy that is poured through Instagram stories and ‘black squares’. But these stories and black squares, while acts of solidarity, aren’t ones that are particularly helpful, and are generally used by ‘influencers’ more as tools of performative activism. Where does herd mentality fit into this? People put up these shows of support because everybody else is doing it, and they want to fit in, and want their sympathy to be seen. The ‘thoughts and prayers’ message has the same qualities. Instead, why not put up links to petitions and fundraisers, or donate?

To be sheep or to not be sheep

1, 2, 3! Hello! We are the d.i.r.m blog (*insert k-pop group introduction*). We are a bunch of highly intelligent but immensely stupid regular teenagers. We eat, we sleep and we study (or at least we try to), but most importantly we love to rant about everything and anything under the sun, about it, inside it, b- you get the point.

We sort of have the taste of a 10 year old boys with a touch of your typical gen z humour. We love poop jokes (can you tell manny wrote this?) and we have an overall bad sense of humour *cue fart noises* whilst joking about our problems. We survive off of books, memes, k-pop, youtube, vine references (yes we are aware it's 2021) dramas, anime, films, shows, fanfics, the list goes on!

On a serious note though, we are passionate about all forms of art, media, psychology and fashion.

We love to question everything and like to view things from different perspectives and voice out our opinions! And that's what this blog is about!

Us

Ketaki

Keta is our unofficial leader! They are a smol uwu 16 year old bean who is one among the holy rats. They study humanities (with math because math is cool fight me), the subjects of the gods. They may be tiny, but they have a big sexy brain (like Jin said), full of all that good knowledge. They are the closest to attaining enlightenment among the three of us.

Manisha

Manny the eldest one here, is the most immautre - 10% genius, 100% brain damage. She is an 18 year old "adult", who is the process of yeeting herself away from science to humanites because she can't calculus, and communication and mass media is literally the swaggest. Beware- Manny makes an ungodly amount of poop jokes.

Harshitha

Harry looks adorable on the outside, but is plotting your murder by stabbing you with radioactive marshmellows on the inside kind of person. She is a teeny-weeny, itty-bitty, tad bit younger than Manny, but she is officially the eldest because she's got a driver's license (virtually). She is studying humanities because communications and mass media for the win!

(The absolutely amazing art of us is by Harry)

Why We Started This

Does it really matter? Well, yes, yes it does. Ignorance isn't bliss.

In Chaos Theory, the Butterfly Effect is the idea that a small change can lead to a much bigger changes, or that one small incident can have a huge impact on the future.

Which means that everything going on around you directly or indirectly affects you and vice versa. And it's the same way with voicing out our opinions.

Viewing things from different perspectives is something a lot of us lack. Respecting others opinions and keeping an open mind is important but stan twitter says differently. Any lukewarm comment will get dragged on the internet and the commenter will be cancelled. We'd like to talk about multiple perspectives to show that not all people think on the same plane, and that it's okay to have a different view point and to broaden our understanding of issues, as long as it doesn't disrespect someone's existence.